Finding Maemo @ TheInquirer

[Mara]

I was reading TheInquirer and they have an article about the N900 and the Maemo OS shipping with it. I found it actually a good read... unusual for TheInquirer article :eek:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1556093/finding-maemo

[DaveP1]

It's a good article (especially since I agree with most of its points). The one thing that everyone here needs to keep in their minds is the conclusion. Carolina Milanesi of the Gartner Group says:

"It has no appeal to someone who just wants a phone - its about developers. It's a PC first and a phone second, its design is not something that will appeal to many people. It is technology for the sake of technology, but it's very encouraging as a platform going forward. It is not fixing the problem. It is more of a proof of concept".

If that is true, the N900 may not be long for this world. The question (which most of us will not be able to answer and which those who could answer are probably not permitted to honestly answer) is whether or not Nokia views the N900 as a beta test.

[allnameswereout]

Qgil tweete that earlier today. Dave, what you quote comes after various positive and negative observations. The overal article is quite informative, even including the Gartner spokeswoman, and you could see your quote simply as phase 4/5.

[livefreeordie]

Overall I liked the article, but jeez... you just can't win against the iPhone no matter what you do:

who suspected that it was more of a showpiece for Nokia. "The N900 does not give Nokia something that could be compared to an Iphone,"

In other words, Nokia has a device far superior to the iPhone in the ultra high end, and far greater volume than the iPhone in all other categories, but because it doesn't have a device exactly like the iPhone, it fails. Groan...


Edit: and what the hell are people who only want phone functionality doing buying an iPhone anyway?

[frals]

Edit: and what the hell are people who only want phone functionality doing buying an iPhone anyway?

Superior marketing. :o

[DaveP1]

Qgil tweete that earlier today. Dave, what you quote comes after various positive and negative observations. The overal article is quite informative, even including the Gartner spokeswoman, and you could see your quote simply as phase 4/5.

Let me say that I don't consider her quote negative at all. But I do see posts in the N900 forum that seem to think the N900 will be or could be a mass market device. I don't see it as that and I doubt Nokia views it that way either. While it may generate buzz, I don't think you'll see the sales (or the marketing campaigns) that you see for the G1, much less the Pre, and much, much less the iPhone.

I should also point out that when I said the N900 may not be long for the world, I meant that I would expect a redesigned N910 within the year.

Please note that I'd love to be wrong. More sales would drive the price down and might convince an American carrier to subsidize it.

[livefreeordie]

Superior marketing. :o

There's one thing I've been wondering about the US market. If people really believe a smartphone costs $99, like they seem to do, wouldn't the market for actually cheap phones be nonexistent?

Conversely, if people are actually buying the cheaper phones because they realize they come with cheaper monthly rates, then why do they still talk like those smartphones actually cost $99?

[DaveP1]

There's one thing I've been wondering about the US market. If people really believe a smartphone costs $99, like they seem to do, wouldn't the market for actually cheap phones be nonexistent?

No, actually cheap phones are free. In fact, I've seen prepaid phones on sale for less than the value of the prepaid minutes that come with the phone.

Conversely, if people are actually buying the cheaper phones because they realize they come with cheaper monthly rates, then why do they still talk like those smartphones actually cost $99?

Because Americans, in general, have no idea what "unlocked" means. They take it for granted that a phone only works with one carrier. If you change carriers you change phones. It's only in the last few years that Americans have been allowed to change carriers without changing phone numbers as well. Furthermore, there is no discount for not buying a subsidized phone from the carrier versus providing your own unlocked phone.

[allnameswereout]

Edit: and what the hell are people who only want phone functionality doing buying an iPhone anyway?Smoking some pretty weird stuff.

[DaveP1]

Smoking some pretty weird stuff.

Remember, a phone is also a fashion statement and a class statement.

Why do people buy any designer labels?

After all, look at Vertu's $8,500.00 phone:

http://www.cellgsmphones.com/content-product_info/product_id-2360/vertu_ascent_ti_ferrari_giallo_gsm_phone_in_stock. html

(and this isn't even their most expensive model). :eek:

[livefreeordie]

No, actually cheap phones are free. In fact, I've seen prepaid phones on sale for less than the value of the prepaid minutes that come with the phone.

Because Americans, in general, have no idea what "unlocked" means. They take it for granted that a phone only works with one carrier. If you change carriers you change phones. It's only in the last few years that Americans have been allowed to change carriers without changing phone numbers as well. Furthermore, there is no discount for not buying a subsidized phone from the carrier versus providing your own unlocked phone.

Sure, sure, but if the difference between a basic phone and smartphone is $99-$0, why would anyone get the cheaper phone? $99 is basically free too. I'm saying that it seems like the market should be so compressed that smartphones become overrepresented and the market for cheaper phones dies.

The reason cheap phones are popular here is that the difference is 500e-50e, which is a much, much wider price range.

The second paragraph was about how, if people actually buy the free phones regardless of this, they must understand the real price of the contract, or the $99 smartphone would always make more sense. This is regardless of whether they're unlocked or not.

[DaveP1]

Actually, I should have mentioned that smartphones can also require additional services which add additional charges to the monthly bill. For example, as AT&T notes: "Please note: Data plan for iPhone is required for the life of your iPhone service and cannot be removed in the future." Their data plan costs $30 per month on top of the minimum $40 per month voice plan and you have to sign a two year contract.

Therefore, if I'm looking for cheap service I will go with a cheap phone to avoid additional service charges, as well as because the phone is cheaper in the first place.

One other thing, the cheapest service is a prepaid plan but most carriers don't even offer data service with a prepaid plan which defeats the purpose of a smartphone.

[sjgadsby]

Sure, sure, but if the difference between a basic phone and smartphone is $99-$0, why would anyone get the cheaper phone?

Judging from the conversations I hear at work, at family gatherings, and in public, it's because $99 is widely considered a ridiculously large amount of money to spend on a phone. Phones are free, and it seems as though anyone paying...well, paying at all feels they need explain their foolish behaviour. "Actually, I, umm, had to pay $39 dollars for this one. I know! I just really liked the color."

The iPhone and Blackberries are the exceptions to this. Of course you paid something. They're iPhones and Blackberries. Besides, it's high time you replaced that pink Razr that it was fully acceptable for you to pay money for years ago.

Between the American carriers and the American consumers, it's no surprise Nokia keeps away.